At least he wears a suit By Ron Dermer May 1, 2003 At least he wears a suit. That's about the only good news I could think of when Abu Mazen became the Palestinian Authority's new prime minister this week. Well, that may be a bit of an exaggeration. In his speech accepting his new post, Abu Mazen did add a moral dimension to a PA pro-forma response to terror that condemns terrorism only on expediential grounds. Rather that simply claiming that terrorism would not advance Palestinian interests, he stated that "[the Palestinians] reject terror on either side and in any form, in keeping with our tradition and moral values." In truth, the duplicitous "terror on either side" stipulation is actually a way of justifying Palestinian terrorism as a response to "Israeli terrorism." To those who would accuse me of nitpicking, note that after every Palestinian terrorist attack, the PA issues the following condemnation: "We condemn all attacks that target civilians, whether they be Israelis or Palestinians." Imagine that immediately after September 11, the Taliban government - or any government for that matter - had said, "We condemn all actions that target civilians, whether they be Americans, Afghans, or Iraqis." Imagine if the Israeli government, after accidentally killing innocent Palestinian civilians in an operation targeting Palestinian terrorists, had issued a statement of contrition that said, "We sincerely regret the death of any civilians, whether they be Palestinians or Israelis." These statements would hardly have been deemed adequate. Indeed, they would have been regarded as downright scandalous. But after Palestinian terrorists murder and maim Israeli civilians on buses, in pizza shops, and outside discos, the Palestinians' condemnation of attacks that target civilians whether they be Israelis or Palestinians is considered sufficient. In fact, a year ago, after a suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed six and wounded more than 100 - and after his terrorist campaign was already in its 19th month - such a statement earned Arafat face time with the American secretary of state. In this way, with a carefully crafted choice of words and with the support of an international community that desperately searches for any sign of Palestinian moderation, PA leaders have found a subtle formula that simultaneously condemns and justifies terror. But the bad news about Abu Mazen is not found merely in subtleties. The overt positions he staked out yesterday ensure that there will be no possibility of reconciliation under his stewardship. He did not deviate in any way from the PA's traditional demands for a Palestinian state free of Jews and a Jewish state flooded with Palestinians. And while a judenrein Palestinian state in all the "occupied territories" has support among a not-insignificant percentage of Israelis, the so-called Palestinian right of return is a non-starter even for Israel's whitest doves. To be sure, Israelis may be foolish enough today to agree to one Palestinian state in the Land of Israel, but they will never be stupid enough to agree to two of them. Abu Mazen's positions would not be so troubling if no one let him get away with them. If Israel and the international community, led by the US, demanded that the Palestinians abandon the right of return before any political negotiations are held, the Palestinians would eventually be forced to change their tune. The logic of such a demand is obvious. After paying a heavy price for Oslo's failure, the people of Israel are entitled to a peace process that leaves little room for doubt. Oslo was based on the two core assumptions that are essential for any peace between Israelis and Palestinians: that the Palestinian leadership had abandoned the goal of destroying Israel, and that it had renounced terrorism and violence as a means of achieving its objectives. In the case of Oslo, both of these assumptions proved false. This time around, Israelis are entitled to a peace process with litmus tests to verify whether there has been any change among the Palestinians before concessions are made. The assumption that terrorism has been renounced can be verified by seeing whether Abu Mazen is willing to take concrete steps to fight it. This would be achieved not by a return to the PA's revolving-door prison policy for terrorists, nor by a cease-fire truce with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Abu Mazen's government would have to disarm all Palestinian militias, end all PA-sponsored incitement and extradite those directly responsible for terrorist attacks against Israelis. More important, the assumption that the Palestinians have abandoned the goal of destroying Israel could be verified by demanding that the Palestinians abandon their demand for the right of return, and say as much to their own people, in Arabic. This would send a clear signal that the Palestinian leadership had reconciled itself to Israel's existence as a Jewish state and accepted their responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian refugees. Unfortunately, few people would seriously argue that any of these litmus tests, let alone all of them, will actually be performed. Abu Mazen will not be forced to disarm Hamas, Islamic Jihad, nor his own Fatah's Tanzim and Al-Aksa militias. He will not be forced to end all incitement, nor will he be forced to extradite Palestinian terrorists. As for being made to abandon the right of return, I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Instead of being regarded as indicators of a genuine peaceful intent, these measures will be widely regarded, both within and outside of Israel, as undermining the new Palestinian PM among his people and endangering the peace process. On his recent trip to Israel, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer expressed the latter sentiment when asked what he thought of Israel's demand that the Palestinians abandon the right of return at the beginning of the peace process. Fischer answered that such a demand would make it "difficult to proceed." Fischer is certainly correct in his analysis. Any step that would force the current Palestinian leadership to genuinely reconcile itself with a Jewish state is bound to kill the peace process because that leadership, no matter who stands at its helm, is not interested in such a reconciliation. Instead, peace will once again have to be sacrificed on the altar of the peace process. But again, look on the bright side. At least Abu Mazen wears a suit. ---------- The writer is a political consultant who lives in Jerusalem.